• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

"Liberal Logic"

RightConservative

New member
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
"Liberal Logic"
By: Doug Hagin
RightConservative.com 07-07-05

If we take Liberal logic, which of course is the ultimate oxymoron, and apply it to everything in life, we will get some rather odd results!

Liberal logic says if we had fewer guns, we would also have fewer crimes. Therefore, from this we must conclude Liberal logic also dictates the following. Fewer eating utensils would soon lead to less obesity. Fewer restaurants would also lead to less obesity, as would fewer cattle. After all cows give milk, and milk can be fattening. Cattle also give us beef, which can also make us fat.

So we can conclude, using Liberal logic, that if we had no cows, no restaurants and no utensils, obesity would be quickly eradicated.

Fewer pens and pencils would lead to fewer grammatical errors such as misspellings. Fewer pens and pencils would also lead to fewer notes in class, thus leading to fewer kids getting in trouble for passing notes in class.

Also without pens and pencils, students could not write nasty things about classmates could they. So we must eliminate these tools of intolerance. Paper too, should be tightly controlled. Without paper, even students with pens or pencils would be unable to write bad things or use poor grammar while writing.

So using Liberal logic, which says more gun control and laws will lessen violent crime, we must also confess that having tight controls on pen, pencil, and paper would curtail poor grammar and hateful writing.

We are off to a great start in using Liberal logic to cure the societal ills of America. Where else can we look to offer even more improvements in our not-nearly liberal enough nation?


Read On...


.....................................
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It would seem that this and related craptacular crap of its ilk (see Are Conservatives UNFIT to run governments! ) are merely schoolyard taunting and thus belong in The Basement.

This is basically pop-con porn for a circle jerk. It's devoid of any real point deeper than "(0n53rv471v35 ru|3. L183r4|5 dr00|."

Eric, don't those folks on your website ever write anything with some meat to it? You know, real food for thought?
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Location
Somewhere between Sean Hannity and Michael Savage
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
RightConservative said:
"Liberal Logic"
By: Doug Hagin
RightConservative.com 07-07-05

If we take Liberal logic, which of course is the ultimate oxymoron, and apply it to everything in life, we will get some rather odd results!

Liberal logic says if we had fewer guns, we would also have fewer crimes. Therefore, from this we must conclude Liberal logic also dictates the following. Fewer eating utensils would soon lead to less obesity. Fewer restaurants would also lead to less obesity, as would fewer cattle. After all cows give milk, and milk can be fattening. Cattle also give us beef, which can also make us fat.

So we can conclude, using Liberal logic, that if we had no cows, no restaurants and no utensils, obesity would be quickly eradicated.

Fewer pens and pencils would lead to fewer grammatical errors such as misspellings. Fewer pens and pencils would also lead to fewer notes in class, thus leading to fewer kids getting in trouble for passing notes in class.

Also without pens and pencils, students could not write nasty things about classmates could they. So we must eliminate these tools of intolerance. Paper too, should be tightly controlled. Without paper, even students with pens or pencils would be unable to write bad things or use poor grammar while writing.

So using Liberal logic, which says more gun control and laws will lessen violent crime, we must also confess that having tight controls on pen, pencil, and paper would curtail poor grammar and hateful writing.

We are off to a great start in using Liberal logic to cure the societal ills of America. Where else can we look to offer even more improvements in our not-nearly liberal enough nation?


Read On...


.....................................
Good stuff and sooo true... the insults always start when logical analogies drive a point home and leave the "tolerant" left with no other rebuttal!
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let's counter such 'liberal' logic with some conservative logic, shall we?

Conservatives are 'pro-life'. They say abortion, which is the conscious choice of a woman, is wrong. So we can conclude that it is wrong to kill a fetus, even if it is done by the fetus's host (biologically speaking). Now, this kind of thinking would save every single fetus in the world. This all sounds rather righteous, doesn't it? Well, let's go on. This fetus becomes human, and he lives his life until he's 18. At this time, conservatives say it is perfectly OK to send this one-time fetus over to a foreign land to fight a preventive war. Choice cannot be assumed since some go into the military for the benefits offered, not for the spoils of 'patriotism'. Let's go back in time a bit. Conservatives don't much care for welfare. So after this child is born (remember, they'd kill to save the fetus...), they are perfectly content to see the child wither away from poverty. Conservatives feel that national healthcare is 'bad', so conservatives also are willing to see this child suffer from malnutrition, measles possibly, etc., any preventable disease really. Conservatives are also against social security. So this one-time fetus will grow old someday (assuming they don't perish from what I've already mentioned) and conservatives feel it is right to make this senior rely on a fluctuating market rather than a steady government program for his money. This of course means some seniors will fall into poverty.

In short, isn't it odd how conservatives are hell-bent on saving the unborn, but perfectly content to see the unfortunate perish once they are born? And yet, these conservatives are the same ones who are 'pro-life'. Yes, this is conservative logic.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Location
Somewhere between Sean Hannity and Michael Savage
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
anomaly said:
Let's counter such 'liberal' logic with some conservative logic, shall we?

Conservatives are 'pro-life'. They say abortion, which is the conscious choice of a woman, is wrong. So we can conclude that it is wrong to kill a fetus, even if it is done by the fetus's host (biologically speaking). Now, this kind of thinking would save every single fetus in the world. This all sounds rather righteous, doesn't it? Well, let's go on. This fetus becomes human, and he lives his life until he's 18. At this time, conservatives say it is perfectly OK to send this one-time fetus over to a foreign land to fight a preventive war. Choice cannot be assumed since some go into the military for the benefits offered, not for the spoils of 'patriotism'. Let's go back in time a bit. Conservatives don't much care for welfare. So after this child is born (remember, they'd kill to save the fetus...), they are perfectly content to see the child wither away from poverty. Conservatives feel that national healthcare is 'bad', so conservatives also are willing to see this child suffer from malnutrition, measles possibly, etc., any preventable disease really. Conservatives are also against social security. So this one-time fetus will grow old someday (assuming they don't perish from what I've already mentioned) and conservatives feel it is right to make this senior rely on a fluctuating market rather than a steady government program for his money. This of course means some seniors will fall into poverty.

In short, isn't it odd how conservatives are hell-bent on saving the unborn, but perfectly content to see the unfortunate perish once they are born? And yet, these conservatives are the same ones who are 'pro-life'. Yes, this is conservative logic.
Interesting story...
Let's start further back though because conservatives will preach abstinence first if you are not sure you want to have a baby so your numbers would be way off from the get go.

When someone enlists in the service they know that there is no guarantee they will not have to stand in harms way... we don't just send them off, they sign up for it with full knowledge of that possibility.

Welfare is fine and we should help those who are having a tough time. The pigeon syndrome is not the answer. If we keep just throwing bread crumbs out they will never be motivated to find their own food. Same thing here, we support limited welfare. It's not for someone to live off of indefinitely.

Healthcare is not a right. Do I think everyone should have it? Yes, but I do not support more socialized government programs that everyone is forced to participate in.

As far as social security goes, it was never meant as a sole means of support for seniors but aside from that it is heading towards bankruptcy. Why? Which political party took social security from the independent "Trust" fund and put into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it? It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate. The "fluctuating market" plan works really well for all those Senate and Hose members and if we had something similar and put less into social security guess what? They would have less to spend and would be forced to put IOU's in some other account!
Conservatives are compassionate people but we are not doormats. Your "conservative logic" story does not come close to a "counter" of the original post but does show your misunderstanding of the "conservative" quite well. :smile:
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
It would seem that this and related craptacular crap of its ilk (see Are Conservatives UNFIT to run governments! ) are merely schoolyard taunting and thus belong in The Basement.
I don't consider the thread "schoolyard taunting". If that's your view, so be it. How else would someone bring to light this mindset of irrational thought that is influencing the some of the actions of our government. There are many people that think this way. I'm not saying all. I'm not saying this is the majority. But there is enough of this "like" thinking out there that government is using my tax dollars to talk about the Ten Commandments and gay marriges. I don't care who gays marry. It's none of my business. This is not what I want my leaders to be using my tax dollars on. There are far more important problems that need addressing.

I don't see how it is a "taunt" to ask the question of whether a group of "like thinkers" have the qualifications to lead a nation. Taunt, to me, is like waving something in front of someones face to illicit a response from the person I'm taunting. And my actions are directed at that person. The point of the thread is directed to the thought process at which some make decisions. There's a difference.
 
Last edited:

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Liberal logic dictates itself around a certain situation, and you clearly do not understand that. We think less guns would mean less crimes, but the same is not equal for all. Just as, well, you get my point.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Let's counter such 'liberal' logic with some conservative logic, shall we?
Why can't we just mix them together? Why does it have to be a counter? We take the good in both, and throw out the bad. Now, there you go! You made me brake my own rule. That you can't solve complex problems with simple solutions.
 
Last edited:

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Bluestateredneck said:
Interesting story...
Let's start further back though because conservatives will preach abstinence first if you are not sure you want to have a baby so your numbers would be way off from the get go.
Fair enough. I believe in one being responsible with their sexuality.

Bluestatredneck said:
When someone enlists in the service they know that there is no guarantee they will not have to stand in harms way... we don't just send them off, they sign up for it with full knowledge of that possibility.
Though a small percentage, let's not forget parents DO send their kids to the military because they couldn't control them, they think Uncle Sam can. But for the most part, I also agree here.

Bluestateredneck said:
Welfare is fine and we should help those who are having a tough time. The pigeon syndrome is not the answer. If we keep just throwing bread crumbs out they will never be motivated to find their own food. Same thing here, we support limited welfare. It's not for someone to live off of indefinitely.
Also agreed. I've heard, though I've not been there to see, that somewhere in New York there is, or used to be a sign that says If you want welfare, go to Lebanon, Pennsylvania Now, I do live in Lebanon, and most anyone can get welfare, because they check nothing. All of the paperwork people fill out, just sits in a file.

Here we have 2,3 sometimes 4 generations of people who live off the government. I believe welfare is a must because most people within our society are one paycheck away from having nothing. The rolls HAVE to be tightened... and illegals should be getting NONE of it.


Bluestateredneck said:
Healthcare is not a right. Do I think everyone should have it? Yes, but I do not support more socialized government programs that everyone is forced to participate in.
This is where I disagree, not much, but enough. Far too often, employers are NOT offering health benefits. Just because someone works in fast food, do they NOT deserve health insurance? Of course not. BUT, for them to buy private insurance, it would be half to 3 quarters of their monthly salary. Let's take the same principles that are used for company insurance benefits, and put it to work privately so those who's companies DON'T offer it can get it.


Bluestateredneck said:
As far as social security goes, it was never meant as a sole means of support for seniors but aside from that it is heading towards bankruptcy. Why? Which political party took social security from the independent "Trust" fund and put into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it? It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate. The "fluctuating market" plan works really well for all those Senate and Hose members and if we had something similar and put less into social security guess what? They would have less to spend and would be forced to put IOU's in some other account!
Conservatives are compassionate people but we are not doormats. Your "conservative logic" story does not come close to a "counter" of the original post but does show your misunderstanding of the "conservative" quite well. :smile:

You're right, social security wasn't intended that way, but in the days where people are retiring with no pensions, for some it's become that way. There are only a few percent of companies that when someone puts in X amount of years, they'll have a pension in addition to the SS. Alot of people, nowadays, ARE living paycheck to paycheck, because they're working more, for less, and costs of everything have exploded. This is a systemic problem, a problem that can be blamed on not one person or action, just to make this clear.

LOL at us having similar to Congressman. I'm sorry, but in addition to the 150,000+ a year in salary they draw, we pay for their healthcare, their car allowances, staff allowances, etc. They have a pension, paid for by us, upon retirement from said position, among many other "perks" I don't know, and probably don't want to know.

I am not sure, as I'm not an economist, what the answer to this problem is. I believe for some, the market works amazingly well. The problem is people, more often than not, cannot afford to put money into the market, because then it takes away from their daily living expenses. Catch 22.
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Location
Somewhere between Sean Hannity and Michael Savage
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
ShamMol Liberal logic dictates itself around a certain situation, and you clearly do not understand that. We think less guns would mean less crimes, but the same is not equal for all. Just as, well, you get my point.
You should look at this John Lott started as a anti gun lobbyist until he began his search for factual evidence to prove less guns equal less crime and found evidence supporting exactly the opposite. The Department Of Justice also has a wealth of evidence to prove the more guns equal less crime. Blame the courts not law abiding gun owners.

This is where I disagree, not much, but enough. Far too often, employers are NOT offering health benefits. Just because someone works in fast food, do they NOT deserve health insurance? Of course not. BUT, for them to buy private insurance, it would be half to 3 quarters of their monthly salary. Let's take the same principles that are used for company insurance benefits, and put it to work privately so those who's companies DON'T offer it can get it.
The problem I have with this is that America is a place where anyone can come and make their life as big as they want! If you started a small business from your home doing a bed and breakfast or something and the government stepped in and said you are required to pay $$$$ for healthcare for all 4 of your staff your independent business rights would be infringed. I do want people to have healthcare but socialized medicine is not the answer, Canada's economy has been in the crapper due to such programs. Again the main problem I have with this is forced participation. Large companies may get brakes on healthcare in "bulk" for employees but government forced participation in such plans would kill the mom and pap shop American dream IMO.
Alot of people, nowadays, ARE living paycheck to paycheck, because they're working more, for less, and costs of everything have exploded. This is a systemic problem, a problem that can be blamed on not one person or action, just to make this clear.
I know I am one of them, but I still put $$ into a 401k and into a Roth IRA. Again this is the responsibility of each one of us as mature adults. Cut back on groceries, fast food, carpool, or whatever you have to do but it should not be the governments responsibility to grow our money and fund our retirement.
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Bluestateredneck said:
The problem I have with this is that America is a place where anyone can come and make their life as big as they want! If you started a small business from your home doing a bed and breakfast or something and the government stepped in and said you are required to pay $$$$ for healthcare for all 4 of your staff your independent business rights would be infringed. I do want people to have healthcare but socialized medicine is not the answer, Canada's economy has been in the crapper due to such programs. Again the main problem I have with this is forced participation. Large companies may get brakes on healthcare in "bulk" for employees but government forced participation in such plans would kill the mom and pap shop American dream IMO.
I'm not saying government should force anyone business to provide insurance. I'm saying private insurance carriers supplying health insurance to those without it, those who's companies don't offer it, or are self employed, should use the same system as is used in company offered health care. Each person picks their plan, pays X amount of dollars (a feasible rate, not 300 a month as I've seen some) per week, and they have insurance. I've done the comparison. The insurance my husband has now... costs 30 per week, that's including the eye and dental. To privately get that same insurance, it would be 333 per month. That's the difference I'm talking about. Use the same idea privately, as is done corporately, and I can almost bet the numbers of those without insurance would drop dramatically.

Bluestateredneck said:
I know I am one of them, but I still put $$ into a 401k and into a Roth IRA. Again this is the responsibility of each one of us as mature adults. Cut back on groceries, fast food, carpool, or whatever you have to do but it should not be the governments responsibility to grow our money and fund our retirement.
It's always easy for us to say... cut back on this.. cut back on that.. I do it, so should you. I will not get into the notion of telling someone what they should do in order to fulfill your ideas. The mentality of " well if I can so should you" is just ludicrous, in a society where the economics are so diverse and there IS a growing gap between the haves and have nots. True, the have's have worked for theirs, but if we're a society that says, "well you couldn't fulfill your duties as a mature adult, even though you worked all your life and did your best to raise your family, because you didn't put money away, you have to just deal" That's unrealistic, too. There has to be a happy medium. We can't just STOP paying into the system, otherwise the Americans who are drawing now.. would have nothing.

The President's idea, on it's face, has some merit. Perhaps a portion of our taxes, that they take anyway, should be privately invested. but if you halve most American's weekly SS tax... it's tantamount to roughly 10-20 dollars per week... not alot in a year's time. Yes some is better than none, but with the average life expectancy of humans at what, 72 now... they're living longer, and needing more to survive.
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Location
Somewhere between Sean Hannity and Michael Savage
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I'm not saying government should force anyone business to provide insurance. I'm saying private insurance carriers supplying health insurance to those without it, those who's companies don't offer it, or are self employed, should use the same system as is used in company offered health care. Each person picks their plan, pays X amount of dollars (a feasible rate, not 300 a month as I've seen some) per week, and they have insurance. I've done the comparison. The insurance my husband has now... costs 30 per week, that's including the eye and dental. To privately get that same insurance, it would be 333 per month. That's the difference I'm talking about. Use the same idea privately, as is done corporately, and I can almost bet the numbers of those without insurance would drop dramatically.
Ok so like I said the employer is still left picking the bulk of the tab, which is fine if that is something they want to do. This is not a socialist country and again the mom and pap business would be the ones wrecked by any such plan that gives employees the "right" to healthcare regardless of employer will to extend such benefits. There are much better areas to focus on to lessen costs of healthcare (which is a topic for another debate).
The mentality of " well if I can so should you" is just ludicrous, in a society where the economics are so diverse and there IS a growing gap between the haves and have nots. True, the have's have worked for theirs, but if we're a society that says, "well you couldn't fulfill your duties as a mature adult, even though you worked all your life and did your best to raise your family, because you didn't put money away, you have to just deal" That's unrealistic, too.
It's really not at all ludicrous and it's not because "if I can, you can to" it's just a larger version of the paycheck to paycheck scenario. When I get paid I pay bills first and then look at what I have left over to get me to the next check. That amount is divided up into areas for the various things I need. This is the same exact thing on a larger scale. Instead of 1 or 2 or 4 weeks of stretching money and setting amounts aside for gas and food, etc. you are doing it on a longer time line. I realize that some people will need help and agree that we need to help those people but we should not be enablers. I agree that Bush's plan for ss has "merit" and I think if he'd pursue it that it would really make a big difference unless someone else is willing to offer a new idea to save ss from it's downward spiral.
 

WiseRufus

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
That was one of the absolute dumbest articles I've ever read.

I am now stupider for having read it.

Thank you.
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Bluestateredneck said:
Ok so like I said the employer is still left picking the bulk of the tab, which is fine if that is something they want to do. This is not a socialist country and again the mom and pap business would be the ones wrecked by any such plan that gives employees the "right" to healthcare regardless of employer will to extend such benefits. There are much better areas to focus on to lessen costs of healthcare (which is a topic for another debate).
You've missed the entire context of my point. Yes, employers would pick up the tab... IF they're offering it. I'm speaking of those companies that don't offer it. Employees need to get insurance somewhere, right? Enable a system that is SIMILAR to group healthcare within companies... for PRIVATE carriers in no way connected to employers... got it yet?

Bluestateredneck said:
It's really not at all ludicrous and it's not because "if I can, you can to" it's just a larger version of the paycheck to paycheck scenario. When I get paid I pay bills first and then look at what I have left over to get me to the next check. That amount is divided up into areas for the various things I need. This is the same exact thing on a larger scale. Instead of 1 or 2 or 4 weeks of stretching money and setting amounts aside for gas and food, etc. you are doing it on a longer time line. I realize that some people will need help and agree that we need to help those people but we should not be enablers. I agree that Bush's plan for ss has "merit" and I think if he'd pursue it that it would really make a big difference unless someone else is willing to offer a new idea to save ss from it's downward spiral.
The larger version? I didn't realize there is a larger version of the paycheck to paycheck scenario. Most normal Americans when they get paid... pay their bills first.... rent/mortgage, electric (oil and gas), telephone, water, sewer, trasch, etc. Then comes food, gas for vehicles for the week to get too and from work, etc.

Not to mention, families need clothing, kids need doctors, dentists. Are you getting my point yet? All families fiscal needs aren't that cut and dry. They have good paying jobs, but as costs of living have exploded, salaries haven't risen with them.

Most people, that I know of anyway, have very little to NO money left after these things take place, and that is including shopping for food at drop and dent places. So if you can save.. good for you. But realistically, it's not the case for a good portion of our nation.
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Location
Somewhere between Sean Hannity and Michael Savage
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
debate_junkie said:
You've missed the entire context of my point. Yes, employers would pick up the tab... IF they're offering it. I'm speaking of those companies that don't offer it. Employees need to get insurance somewhere, right? Enable a system that is SIMILAR to group healthcare within companies... for PRIVATE carriers in no way connected to employers... got it yet?



The larger version? I didn't realize there is a larger version of the paycheck to paycheck scenario. Most normal Americans when they get paid... pay their bills first.... rent/mortgage, electric (oil and gas), telephone, water, sewer, trasch, etc. Then comes food, gas for vehicles for the week to get too and from work, etc.

Not to mention, families need clothing, kids need doctors, dentists. Are you getting my point yet? All families fiscal needs aren't that cut and dry. They have good paying jobs, but as costs of living have exploded, salaries haven't risen with them.

Most people, that I know of anyway, have very little to NO money left after these things take place, and that is including shopping for food at drop and dent places. So if you can save.. good for you. But realistically, it's not the case for a good portion of our nation.
oh I get it now... socialize medicine and make the "wealthy" give even more money to the government so additional social programs can be funded. If you are looking for a social utopia you are in the wrong country my friend.
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Bluestateredneck said:
oh I get it now... socialize medicine and make the "wealthy" give even more money to the government so additional social programs can be funded. If you are looking for a social utopia you are in the wrong country my friend.
Socialised medicine, along with education, is the least that you should expect of a civilised society.
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Bluestateredneck said:
BECAUSE THIS IS NOT AND WILL NOT BE A SOCIALIST COUNTRY!
BUT I DO NOT LOVE IN YOUR COUNTRY!

Learn to read - the information is there.
 
Top Bottom